Bush's War

Senator McCain was in Baghdad yesterday. After touring “a newly fortified Baghdad market,” he “declared that the American public was not getting ‘a full picture’ of the progress unfolding in Iraq.” Nearby, six US soldiers were killed by roadside bombs and snipers returned to the marketplace after McCain, his large security team and his attack helicopter escort retired to the Green Zone (where he is required to wear a flack jacket and helmet as per new US embassy orders).

Dude, we can't get out of that clusterfk fast enough...

I've been wondering what Democrats will do if Bush vetoes the defense funding bill with the timeline attached. Apparently, they're going to stick to their guns despite all the bad political things Iraq War supporters say they'll suffer. It's a good move. I suspect this will actually strengthen the Democrat's position with Americans.

It's hard to get around the fact that 57% of Americans want a timeline for withdrawal and only 36% think a timeline is a bad idea. Few people believe a handful of foreign al-Qaeda Sunnis will take over a country of 26 million that's 80% non-Sunni, and most people realize that any future terrorist attacks on the United States are being planned in Pakistan, not Iraq.

Some Iraq War supporters believe that a US withdrawal might trigger a regional conflagration. That's pretty unlikely given that a massive Sunni-Shiite religious war is the last thing Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran want. In fact, we're already seeing the Saudis distance themselves from Washington and step into the diplomatic leadership vacuum created by President Bush.

Some Iraq War supporters argue that a US withdrawal would leave the blood of an Iraqi civil war on our hands. It's unfortunate but true that Americans have a great capacity for shedding that kind of guilt -- the massacres in Darfur, Rwanda and after the fall of Saigon are testament enough to that. It won't phase us a bit.

Other Iraq War supporters say a US withdrawal will leave Iraq as a satellite state of Iran. Hello! It's already a satellite state of Iran. President Bush assured that by invading Iraq completely ignorant of Middle Eastern political, racial, social and religious dynamics.

But most of all, Iraq War supporters say forcing a withdrawal will hurt Democrats because Americans hate to lose. Once again, however, it's hard to get around the fact that most Americans want a withdrawal -- and I'll tell you why: This war is not America's war; this war is President Bush's war.

Americans have no stake in this war. As President Bush's chief campaign strategist, Matthew Dowd, recently pointed out, Bush failed "to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war." Bush told us to go about our business and he'd take care of everything. There was no draft, no war taxes, no gas rationing and no victory gardens. This is President Bush's war and whether he wins or loses it, most Americans don't feel it reflects much on them.

As far as most Americans are concerned, we won the war when we toppled Saddam and there's no reason to stay on. Mission accomplished. It's time to bring the troops home.

AP, this is the war of big oil and US imperialism. The neo cons and Bush intend never to leave Iraq. Why else huge permanent bases and the largest embassy in the world? Iraq is part of the greater game for mid east and indeed global hegemony, to control the regions resources and to ensure that the natives cannot have the temerity to act in their own national interests where those may conflict with US interests. Iran is on the list for regime change, as it was before, when its democratically elected prime minister was ousted in a CIA arranged coup, so as to secure control of its resources for big US and British oil. As usual, a vicious corrupt dictator was installed by the US to keep the locals down, and serve US interests. It was this imperialism which brought forth the Iranian revolution and the rise of the Mullahs and Ayatollahs.

This is imperialism pure and simple, in a post imperial world. Of course it will go the way of all past empires, overreach, bankruptcy and decline. The US in no longer a democratic nation. It is controlled by narrow interests. Why else do the Dems fail to end the charade, which is killing thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and wasting a profligate amount of US taxpayers money, all the while discrediting a once proud nation among the nations.

The greatest danger in any democracy is the people not playing their role; eternal vigilance upon their rulers. Among those who seek public office there will be many, if not most, who seek it purely so as to exercise power. Megalomaniacs. There are very few who are driven by a commitment to public service.In the US, and many more of our democracies, the people have allowed themselves to become distracted by meaningless pursuits, becoming couch potatoes, and not staying abreast of what the schemers are up to. Look at the percentages who turn up to vote for example, or perhaps more correctly, the percentages who don’t.

I believe the Iraqi occupation will end when the empire ends. When the whole project for a new American century is incinerated to ashes. The US has had its day in the sun. New empires are rising. The cycle of rise and decline is spinning ever faster. The only thing I believe that can stop this evil imperialism, unfortunately, is economic and military and political collapse. That will be a very painful process for the rest of us, but I think it’s a small price to pay to remove a greedy and vicious hegemon from the world. I just hope it doesn’t end in nuclear conflagration.

Humanity? Tell that to the Iraqis that have been, and continue to be, merely collateral damage in our hegemonic quest.

Faith? Whose faith?

Patriotism? Huh?

Super Power? Wars cannot won with technology alone. If any one lesson can be taken away from this debacle that would be it.

World Image? Long gone. It began to leave with the “my or the highway” attitude American leaders espoused to the rest of the world on our rush into Iraq.

Freedom if we lose? Again, just who are we losing this freedom to?

Bush and his PNAC buddies have truly screwed the pooch. The train has already left the station on this ill-advised, ill-conceived, and ill-executed plan to bring stability to a region that nobody bothered to read the history of.

Iraq is part of the greater game for mid east and indeed global hegemony, to control the regions resources and to ensure that the natives cannot have the temerity to act in their own national interests where those may conflict with US interests.

Umm… As an American, it’s hard not to think that’s a good thing for us. Except that I think we were doing a better job of it before President Bush invaded Iraq. That was stupid.

How so, insensitive? Are the terrorists going to turn their mighty air force and giant fleets of battleships and aircraft carriers on America? Do you see the terrorist invasion fleet headed this way?

As I pointed out in my article, we lose nothing by withdrawing from Iraq. terrorists aren’t going to take over there — the Iranians will see to that (thanks to President Bush) — and most people realize that the next terrorist attack on the US is being planned by bin Laden in Pakistan, not Iraq.

No, it’s not the terrorists who are destroying our freedoms. It’s the politicians who authorized unconstitutional invasions of privacy, secret arrests based on secret evidence, and secret detentions who are responsible for that.

“and I’ll tell you why: This war is not America’s war; this war is President Bush’s war.”

I think this is the best way to summarize the situation at hand. I really do hope that the democrats stick to their guns and if possible find ways to impeach the bastard.. I am sick and tired of looking at his stupid face on tv talking nonsense and saying the same things over and over again.

INSENSITIVE: You have lost all of your marbles and your rationale does not make any sense to me and I am sure the majority of the sensible human population

AP
If controlling the regions resources would be a “good thing for us,” then why would we want Iran controlling Iraq?
Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of our country if we did not allow that to happen?

We’ve been in Iraq long enough.
Leaving now does not mean we lost.
It’s time to leave.
Should our troops be used this way for nation building and babysitting civil wars?
Iraqis need to decide if they want to save their own country or keep killing each other for no good reason.
We’ve given Iraq plenty of time and money already.
The sad fact is that it is quite possible they will never (any time soon) stop killing each other; they may be determined to have their civil war with or without us, no matter what.
We’ve done enough.
None of this is making the U.S. safer.
In fact, this whole thing has probably made the whole world less safe.
Leaving doens’t mean we lost, nor does it mean they will follow us here.
Besides, some are already here, and wide-open borders and ports makes it all the easier to do.
It is right to endanger our troops trying to stop their civil war?
What about Darfur?
Why only the interest in the middle east (oil perhaps?).
Should a Draft be started for a foreign nation’s civil war?
This whole thing was a mistake.
Especially since there was no WMD.
Our troops can’t be the world police.
Our troops deserve MUCH better.

Most Iraqis polled want us to leave (who can blame them?). 82% of Iraqis “strongly oppose” the continuing occupation, and 45% of Iraqis feel attacks against coalition troops are justified! The battle for hearts and minds has already been lost!

A poll of U.S. troops in Iraq (released by the Zogby International polling firm) finds that 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should leave Iraq.

In March of 2006, 25% of U.S. troops said the U.S. troops should leave Iraq immediately.

Our troops deserve better. It’s not right to subject our troops to danger for nation-building and baby-sitting civil wars. Iraq will have their civil war with or without us.

The cost to continue this war will be enormous (in terms of lives of U.S. and coalition troops, and Iraqis, and monetary cost).
And while our troops risk life and limb, go without adequate medical care and promised benefits, our illustrious Congress votes on pork-barrel and another raise for themselves (the 9th raise in 10 years).
Never mind that the National Debt is now $8.85 trillion, Social Security surpluses are still being plundered and Social Security it $12.8 trillion in the hole, and there’s an approaching entitlements/demographics iceberg in which 77 million baby boomers will soon start becoming eligible for entitlements at a rate of 13,175 persons per day!

Sen. John McCain is being a bit dishonest don’t ya think?
After all, he was surrounded by U.S. troops for protection, wearing a bullet proof vest, and there were U.S. snipers on the nearby roofs. The area was also probably already scanned/surveyed in advance. 24 hours later, there were snipper incidents in that same market. And what about outside the small green zone? There seems to be a dishonest attempt to leave viewers with the false impression that all of Iraq is that safe, when most of Iraq is much less safe. I used to have some respect for John McCain, but he is now trying to twist the facts and portray reality to be something different. He can kiss his chances at President good bye. Something else I don’t understand about John McCain is his voting to let illegal aliens receive Social Security benefits (as did these other Congress persons).

“Some Iraq War supporters argue that a US withdrawal would leave the blood of an Iraqi civil war on our hands.”

Yes, it would! And, seeing as how the left “cares” so much about the Iraqi people, and the Right doesn’t, it wouldn’t go over well with the left, would it?!

“It’s unfortunate but true that Americans have a great capacity for shedding that kind of guilt — the massacres in Darfur, Rwanda and after the fall of Saigon are testament enough to that. It won’t phase us a bit.”

Yes it will. Another 9/11 attack would certainly “phase” us! And, that’s exactly what will happen if we leave Iraq; as Al Qaede has claimed so many times, “Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror”. That’s where the biggest stake is for both the allies and the enemy.

The notion that a Shiite-Kurdish-dominated government would tolerate Iraq becoming a safe haven for al-Qaeda is improbable on its face. Even if U.S. troops left Iraq, the successor government would continue to be dominated by Kurds and Shiites, since they make up more than 80 percent of Iraq’s population…

At best, al-Qaeda could hope for a tenuous presence in predominantly Sunni areas of the country while being incessantly stalked and harassed by government forces — and probably hostile Iraqi Sunnis as well. That doesn’t exactly sound like a reliable base of operations for attacks on America.

I don’t think you really understand what is going on in Iraq. While there are Al Qaeda and other “terrorists” there, they aren’t the real problem. It is a Sunni/Shiite civil war. This is a totally different animal than the terrorist you fear so much. No Sunni or Shiite is coming over here to attack us once Iraq turns into total chaos and it is ridiculous to think so.

There also seems to be a tendency on the right to think that willing us to win in Iraq is going to make it happen. I could will myself to be purple and I could do this for years and I still won’t be purple. It is the same with this war. I do understand that losing this war is not without horrendous consequences but the fact is we are not going to win no matter what we do, how long we do it, and how many people we send over there to do it. It is already lost - it is tragic but true and since this war has been the creation of the neo-con right they seem to be willing to continue the sacrifice of American and Iraqi lives to try to save face.

I don’t think you really understand what is going on in Iraq. While there are Al Qaeda and other “terrorists” there, they aren’t the real problem. It is a Sunni/Shiite civil war. This is a totally different animal than the terrorist you fear so much. No Sunni or Shiite is coming over here to attack us once Iraq turns into total chaos and it is ridiculous to think so.”

I understand a lot more about war and Iraq than you might think. I also understand a bit about war. I don’t think it will be sunnis or shiites who will be attacking us. I DO know that surrendering in Iraq will strengthen terrorists all over the world by making us look weak.

“There also seems to be a tendency on the right to think that willing us to win in Iraq is going to make it happen.”

I don’t know what the right are thinking, but I know that it takes hard work and a high price in life and money to win a war like this. Since you brought up will, I firmly believe you can will yourself to lose and that’s what I see from you and others like you.

“I could will myself to be purple and I could do this for years and I still won’t be purple.”

If you really want to be purple, hold your breath for 10 minutes.

“It is the same with this war. I do understand that losing this war is not without horrendous consequences but the fact is we are not going to win no matter what we do, how long we do it, and how many people we send over there to do it. It is already lost - it is tragic but true and since this war has been the creation of the neo-con right they seem to be willing to continue the sacrifice of American and Iraqi lives to try to save face.

I know that it takes hard work and a high price in life and money to win a war like this.

insensitive, it takes even more than that. It takes a competence that this administration just does not have. It takes a lot of hard diplomatic work to get the three main Iraqi factions to stop fighting each other — work that this administration refuses to do. And it takes the 400,000 troops the military has asked for all along and which this administration refuses to commit.

If President Bush insists on losing this war by fighting it in the half-assed manner in which it’s been prosecuted over the last four years, then I cannot support him. And I don’t understand why you would support that kind of leadership either.

I’ll fight a half assed war with a half assed leader before I surrender like some of you want to do.

Please, please, please let me know when you play poker for money again. I’ll be there!

There’s no easier way to win a bunch at gambling than to have an opponent whose pride is so big that he’ll double-down on any bad bet, no matter how bad.

It’ll be so much fun for me to play with someone who prefers to lose huge instead of playing smart, throwing good money after bad instead of cutting losses when necessary to be able to have a better chance at the next hand (which is the better long-term strategy).

So, when will it be? I’ll bring the chips. You just bring your money. I prefer crisp bills.

“Bin Laden believes that Iraq is becoming the perfect battlefield to fight the “American crusaders” and that the Iraqi insurgency has been “100 percent successful so far,” according to a Taliban participant at the mid-November meeting who goes by the nom de guerre Sharafullah.”

“Their message: Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits. All this was on the orders of bin Laden himself, the sources said. Why? Because the terror chieftain and his top lieutenants see a great opportunity for killing Americans and their allies in Iraq and neighboring countries such as Turkey, according to Taliban sources who complain that their own movement will suffer.”

Lawnboy, read the critiques again; those two bloggers said they only heard Bush and Company saying it and not Al Qaeda. Don’t get smarta-lecky and parse words here; the proof is right there. Bin Laden wants to cut back funding in Afghanistan; you know, the place where the left feels we should be exclusively to fight Al Qaeda, and send it to Iraq to “kill” Americans. That’s shifting the “focus” from Afghanistan to Iraq.

By the way, I saw this political parody commercial about the ACLU; the trademark was:
“The ACLU, protecting criminals from people like you since the 1920’s”. I immediately thought of you. Ha! Ha!

Don’t get smarta-lecky and parse words here; the proof is right there.

That’s right, rahdigly. I’ll keep in mind that the proof of any statement you make is in your mind, not in the actual text of the statement.

I didn’t realize it was considered “smarta-lecky” to be able to read, but point taken.

those two bloggers said they only heard Bush and Company saying it and not Al Qaeda.

And this helps your argument? You ascribe words to Al Qaida, and you point to a source of people who have heard Bush say it, but haven’t heard Al Qaida say it?

What????? It’s not even a quote of Al Qaida, it’s an analysis piece, and your description of it here is completely opposed to your point.

That’s shifting the “focus” from Afghanistan to Iraq.

And yet it doesn’t mean that it would become the “central front”, words that are directly taken from Bush, Rice, and Cheney.

Here’s a tip (which I have every reason to expect you will ignore): when you are challenged on a quote you have ascribed to a person or a group, you have to actually support the claim with a reference to the quote. Your extreme hand-waving in the face of supported opposing evidence does not constitute “proof”.

You’re parsing words when the source cites: “Bin Laden believes that Iraq is becoming the perfect battlefield to fight the “American crusaders”“. Yet, you want to say that he didn’t say “Central focus”, so it’s not the same thing. It’s so funny watching some of you squirm around the obvious just to avoid reality; many of you hate Bush so bad you can’t even accept the facts on this one.

Bin Laden believes that Iraq is becoming the perfect battlefield to fight the “American crusaders”

Sure. Iraq’s a lot easier for jihadists to get into than Afghanistan. But I don’t understand your point, rah. Bin Laden’s not in Iraq. Doesn’t it make more sense to move the central front in the war on terror to where its leadership is plotting the next attack on America?

According to whatever that was you cut & pasted there, it’s only costing bin Laden $1.5 million to get the US off his back and grind down our armed forces in a quagmire while he plots al-Qaeda’s next attack on America in peace.

“”According to whatever that was you cut & pasted there, it’s only costing bin Laden $1.5 million to get the US off his back and grind down our armed forces in a quagmire while he plots al-Qaeda’s next attack on America in peace.” “

I do believe it. As I said, I don’t expect you to take it. By taking advice from someone, you’d have to admit that you don’t already know everything, something you seem to deny despite the obviousness to everyone else.

You’re parsing words when the source cites: “Bin Laden believes that Iraq is becoming the perfect battlefield to fight the “American crusaders”“. Yet, you want to say that he didn’t say “Central focus”, so it’s not the same thing.

No, rah, this has nothing to do with parsing words. This is about your not knowing what you’re saying. Let’s look back at your initial claim:

as Al Qaede has claimed so many times, “Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror”.

Your claim here is that Al Qaida often has used the phrase “Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror”. In fact, as we have shown and described, that phrase is/was a favorite of Bush, Rice, and Cheney, not Al Qaida.

Furthermore, the link you provided as “evidence” shows that an analyst believes that Al Qaida might find Iraq to be an ideal battleground. That’s a completely different concept than the “central front” on the “war on terror”, that’s not a quote (as you implied), and that’s not support for your claim of “so many times”.

So, you claim a quote as coming often from a particular group. The evidence shows instead that the quote comes from someone else, it never came from the group you claim, and it didn’t come “so many times”. Congrats, you are wrong on the facts three times in one sentence.

It’s so funny watching some of you squirm around the obvious just to avoid reality

I’m sorry, but you’re the one squirming around the fact that you incorrectly ascribed a quote to someone. Hatred or acceptance of Bush has nothing to do with your inability to make or defend an argument.

your ad hominem attacks are entertaining to me.

Once again, you show you don’t know what an ad hominem attack is. Please learn the meaning of words that you use.

Rahdigly confuses Bush with Al Qaida, putting the words of our president in the mouths of a terrorist organization. A few of us point out that, no, Bush is not a spokesman for Al Qaida, and that the quote is misattributed.

What on earth could be our motivation for pointing out that President Bush is not a member of the terrorist organization that attacked us 5 years ago? According to Rahdigly, it’s that we hate Bush.

AP,
“That sounds traitorous. Are you speaking for all Republicans when you say that? ‘Cause that would explain a lot.”

There’s that word again “traitorous”. You’re fixated on that word; though, you might want to attribute it towards the dems, they are the one’s getting played by the terrorists. And, going to Pakistan is not the answer. They have a myriad of islamofundamentalist that would overthrow the gov’t; a gov’t that has a nuclear weapon, by the way. We don’t know for sure if Bin Laden is (definitely) in Pakistan and, even if he was, he’s not going to end the war on terrorism. Besides, some believe he’s in Iran and has been there for years; though we don’t know for sure.

Lawnboy,

“Rahdigly confuses Bush with Al Qaida, putting the words of our president in the mouths of a terrorist organization. A few of us point out that, no, Bush is not a spokesman for Al Qaida, and that the quote is misattributed.”

I will admit that I did misattribute the terrorists saying “Iraq’s the central focus”; that was the Bush Admin that said that. However, Al Qaeda has indeed been focusing their efforts to Iraq (to which I’ve sourced) and they (Al Qaeda) are certainly proving Bush’s claims to be true. Yet, the anti-Bushies won’t admit it; most of their (hateful) complaints are centered around leaving Afghanistan to go fight Iraq. Now, Al Qaeda’s doing that and it’s (somehow) Bush’s fault for claiming “Iraq as the central front”.

As Al Qaeda rebuilds in Pakistan’s tribal areas, a new generation of leaders has emerged under Osama bin Laden to cement control over the network’s operations, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

You say,

a gov’t that has a nuclear weapon, by the way.

And you think it’s a grand idea to let bin Laden run around loose in a country dominated by Islamic fundamentalists with nuclear weapons? You think it’s just dandy to let al Qaeda plot a nuclear strike against the US in peace?

I take back the “traitorous” comment. You sound like you’ve merely let your partisanship override whatever good judgement you may have.

Lawnboy, that’s what being a man is about! And, “telling Rocky”; he needs to just answer questions (specifically). Now, YOU still haven’t scored a victory on anything b/c Bush is still right about Al Qaeda focusing on Iraq. You didn’t mention anything about the article and the fact that most of the left has been crying about just focusing on Afghanistan rather than Iraq.

I will admit that I did misattribute the terrorists saying “Iraq’s the central focus”; that was the Bush Admin that said that.

Thanks to, finally, agree with us on that.

However, Al Qaeda has indeed been focusing their efforts to Iraq (to which I’ve sourced) and they (Al Qaeda) are certainly proving Bush’s claims to be true. Yet, the anti-Bushies won’t admit it; most of their (hateful) complaints are centered around leaving Afghanistan to go fight Iraq. Now, Al Qaeda’s doing that and it’s (somehow) Bush’s fault for claiming “Iraq as the central front”.

If Bush didn’t choose to go in Iraq, today Bush admin will be still known to say “Afghanistan is the central front in the War on Terror” and Al Quaeda would have *not* shift its focus from Afghanistan to Iraq.

You make it like the War On Terror battlefield was choosed by Al Quaeda. But the last time they did it was in NYC, 9/11.
Since, Bush choose the battlefield. First Afghanistan (OBL was there being a good reason), then, for unrelated reasons, Iraq.

Al Quaeda just goes where they could easily attack US soldiers. And it’s easier for them in muslims region than, well, South Korea, Gitmo or obviously on US soil. Should Bush choosed to go war against Pakistan, Syria or Iran instead of Iraq, Al Quaeda focus will have moved in Pakistan, Syria or Iran, no doubt.

But we knows it break your “Saddam was behind 9/11” line. How sad.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 6, 2007 10:21 AM

Post a comment

If you're seeing this message, you won't be able to post a comment. I'm sorry, but to combat comment spam, we've had to resort to "hiding" the url to the comment script using javascript.